No one, least of all me, is claiming that torture is 100% effective. And yes, it CAN have the opposite effect. That is why it's not relied on SOLELY, unless absolutely necessary..

Even if torture is effective 1 out of 100 times or 1 out of 1000 times, that to me is sufficient reason to at least have the option.. Because that 1 time it IS effective could lead (in fact DID lead) to the breakup of a terrorist attack against US and British airliners out of Heathrow.

Again, I point out the analogy of giving cops guns. 1 in 20 cops use their guns in the performance of their duties.. But it is surely better for 19 cops to HAVE guns and not need them, rather than be that ONE COP who needs a gun, but doesn't have one.

Surely the logic is inescapable..

You can (and have) argued every point possible against torture. And, by and large, you are dead on balls accurate.. But what NO ONE has been able to negate is the FACT that SOMETIMES torture is effective and SOMETIMES it saves lives..

That reason alone is sufficient to keep the option available.

I mean, it's not as if we are talking about real human beings here. We're talking about animals who should be killed on sight. So, what's really wrong with getting vital intel from them before we kill them?? Does anyone REALLY have a problem with that??

Re: The wiretaps 6 months prior to 9/11. I would have to know what we were wiretapping. Was it Bin Laden & Al Qaeda?? If so, then I agree with you that someone royally screwed the pooch...

But here again, as in the torture issue, this type of surveillance is valuable. That is indisputable.. So why would ANYONE want to do away with such a valuable tool???

Yea, I know.. I know.. You'll respond, "We're not doing away with it. We're just making sure it goes thru dozens of civilian hoops, hundreds of un-cleared people so that some poor American's Nutball recipe won't be compromised.."

Trust me when I say this. If investigators do not have 100% Carte Blanche in prosecuting terrorist surveillance than you might as well do away with it completely.. We have NOTHING to gain and EVERYTHING to lose by not giving investigators EVERY TOOL possible..

It's rather ironic that, for the most part, NO ONE would have any problems with these kinds of surveillance techniques in the AFTERMATH of a devastating attack that has killed thousands. Yet these same people will scream bloody murder if these techniques are employed to PREVENT a devastating attack that would kill thousands...

Isn't that just a tad illogical???

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few... Or the one..."
-Spock

Michale.....

Sorry everyone, I've been too busy to deal with comments this weekend. But I couldn't resist this one. As to your #1 and #5, I invite you to read this old article. If torturing people got us into Iraq, how did that save American lives? And if the telecoms were asked to wiretap six months before 9/11, how did that work out?

I'm just saying...

Anyway, apologies for not responding to your other points, like I said, it's been a busy weekend.

-CW

2. Laws are passed all the time that are "retro-active"..

3. Why should the WRONG Law be passed???

4. Is a non-starter.. One only has to look at Fallon's current statements to realize that the Dems are taking everything he has said out of context and muddling it up solely for political gain.. Shame on Democrats...

5. Torturing a terrorist is NOT morally wrong, no matter how you slice it. ESPECIALLY if such torture leads to saving innocent lives, as has happened in the past... Sorry, my sympathy for terrorists is... simply non-existent...

6. Any suggestions??? Are you really trying to say that Democrats are more fiscally responsible??? :D

7. That horse is long dead and buried. Digging it up will only stink up the place even more so than it already stinks... Refer any further inquiries to Dan Rather and CBS News...

Michale.....